Charles H Butcher III (Chuck, please) has been a candidate for OR 2nd CD Democratic Primary 5/06 and has moved this site into an advocacy and comment mode. Thanks for stopping by, I hope I've added to your day.
*Comments Policy* Give yourself a name, have fun.
Guns? We got Guns, got politics, too. Try some.

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

I just got done listening to Dana Milbanks essentially apologizing for the GOP by blaming its Primary, paraphrasing, he said this primary has made things difficult for the GOP and blaming a handful of extremists for hijacking it. This almost in the same breath as saying David Brooks has spent decades as a "reasonable Republican." David goddamn Brooks, who has spent those decades justifying and rationalizing each step the GOPers have taken into lunacy. Up until right now, Our Mister Brooks hasn't found a damn thing to complain about. Rather than actually complain, he's blurred the lines and blunted the edges of craziness with sociological crap drooled into his column.

The Primary is the problem? This is the breeding program of the GOP finally maturing. They've played at this for decades upon decades and just now the "reasonable" people are saying, "Huh?" This is supposed to make anyone whose paid attention think that maybe Goldwater, Nixon, and St Ronnie were just kidding? Dana Milbanks is credited with being an astute observer of politics and he comes up with blaming the goddam Primary? Nobody was watching Sarah Palin's campaign in '08? Apparently not Milbanks.

I'd be seriously remiss if I didn't call out the Democrats who kept finding a middle way and being all "collegial" and not using plain language to call stupid and crazy, "stupid and crazy." "My esteemed colleague is making a mistake" scarcely covers the ground of being a lying batshit crazy fuckhead. When Sen Kyl stood on the Senate floor and made his "not intended as a factual statement" nobody stood up and said, "That, sir, is a flat out lie." 95% vs 3% is not a mistake and "not a factual statement" is a fucking lie.

I would surely be just as remiss for not assigning blame to the nasty equivocators who wear (D) labels as they shifted politically farther and farther right and sabotaged everything marginally liberal. That is liberal, not goddam LEFT. Sure, the media has played stenographer and the voters just paid no attention, but that sure is easy to do if the elected officials just suck the corporate tit and say not spit that might serve the interest of the public.

Oh hell, just put the President back in and elect whatever (D) happens to be running and we won't go into the toilet quite as quickly. Some of you might actually have the pleasure of voting for someone that IS a Democrat and DOES give a damn about the public. Most of you, oh well... Dana is on your side.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

It is frequently asserted that laws are moral and that religion has a hand in that. Sometimes this gets mixed up in the concept that without religion there is no morality. This idea is understandable, no religion will last that creates social conditions that end in disorder and chaos, which means that any lasting religion will set out codes of behavior that result in some sort of social comity.

Governments that aren't a religion have a similar goal, social comity and lack of disorder and chaos. Having common goals often results in similar restrictions and requirements. A religion that teaches that murder is against the teachings and rules of the deity is certainly increasing social comity and decreasing disorder and chaos and it calls that stricture morality (god-given morality). A government concerned with social comity and lack of disorder and chaos will also place restrictions on murder, it requires no deity to do so, nor even morality - it is simple self-interest and survival for it to do so.

Governments have a couple tools at hand to achieve the ends of order and comity, punishment and reward, generally monetary or physical. Because a government deals with the temporal and worldly it really can't count on a deity to take immediate care of those rewards and punishments. It will deal with malefactors in a temporal manner, taking their money, their freedom, or their lives and do so with force. The tools the government has are abjectly amoral, it will force you rather than appeal to your "better nature." Once a law is established you are not asked about it, you are told and that telling is backed up by force. Compelling is not about morality, it is not an appeal to morality, it is not backed by morality, it is plainly unconcerned with the entire concept.

You can certainly build a government around damn near any document the populace will bear, holy books or other concepts of order and comity but once that is done the whole affair becomes at best amoral. It is popular to call Nazi Germany evil and immoral and the behavior of individuals involved does offend most of us at a moral level. That government wasn't destroyed because it was amoral or immoral, it was destroyed because it failed the basic goals of order and comity. It failed them internally and more importantly, internationally. The wholesale slaughter of a citizenry is not order, it is force at ferocious levels and it has nothing to do with comity.

There certainly is a moral component to the idea of slavery, it offends a basic empathy. As a feature of government it fails on another level, it certainly has nothing to do with comity for the subjected group and fails as order in the face of the resistance of that group to subjugation and the need for extreme force to maintain it. It is easy to forget that order requires very broad agreement or extreme force and extreme force is in itself disorder if applied at all broadly. It is certainly extreme force when a police officer shoots an armed robber, but that level of force is applied individually and rarely.

Drug laws are frequently put forward as a moral issue dealt with by law. It is pretty easy to track the success of those laws. Drugs certainly do have effects on comity and order, getting run over by a truck driven by an incapacitated driver is real in terms of order as are deaths from overdoses or psychological consequences. These outcomes are entirely separate from the morality of drug usage and because drugs are treated differently than the issue demands for comity and order the laws fail. Tremendous amounts of enforcement result in huge incarceration figures and huge profits for avoiding the laws leading to disorder and enmity afflicting entire communities.

It is entirely reasonable to have a moral code that aligns with laws and to wish to conduct a life in accordance with or in excess of law, it another thing to think that those laws are moral or religious. Through out history there have been governments that operated under cover of morality or religion, enforcing dogma as law. In the shorter term when their populations are homogenous they tend to be pretty efficient at keeping themselves in power. Over time they become increasingly forceful with their populations which fails the goals of comity and order and finally results in failure. The time scales of failure have accelerated through out history progressing through millenia to centuries to decades. Minus the intervention of outside interests, Iran should prove an interesting test case.

You'd need a pretty large ruler to measure my incredulity that as a part of political dialogue in this country I'd be addressing this as any more than a remote historical reference. There are a couple things in religious mythos that I find real offensive and at the risk of offending sensitive sensibilities I'm going to name them. Santa God - the granter of wishes with a listThe Exclusive Club God - gotta say the right words right omnipotent creator of universesSatan

The King of Lies, Deceiver of Kings, the ultimate evil, that guy - Satan is my target... because that's the title.(I learned with "Harley Porn" not to kid with titles) It would seem that the US of A is being targeted by this character, really, somebody semi-important said so.(in front of god and everybody) This Satan personage is the flip cover of Santa God. He is an active malevolent actor in the world with a list. He has his favorites and those he'd destroy and he can be brought to play by wishes. If certain people are to be believed he's pretty good at his job.

Sorry, I just don't buy into this blame game, this personification of a concept like evil. If God is good he must have an opposite, like light and dark because... well because. Some of this follows from the "Exclusive Club God" concept because you cannot be good without the right God and the right Words, it just doesn't matter what you do or try - you're wrong if you do it otherwise. This puts an onus on God, he can't be the source of evil since he's the good so somebody else has to bear the burden. Never mind that means that either God created or tolerates (because of an oops) EVIL in person of Satan. I know there are all kinds of stories about how this came to be - that's the short version.

I get along with the idea of a Creator because it works for me, nothing fancy to be found there, just that. I don't mind metaphors about evil, about the impulses of us to be small, to be greedy, to be murderous, to be... Folks, if I talk about my "bad side" I assure you that I am nowhere schizophrenic to think that there's other little rat bastard residing in my consciousness. I'm talking about a desire to not do things the hard way, to not have to put myself out not some cartoon horned guy standing on my left shoulder whispering in my ear. Whatever I do requires some time, energy, and some kind of thought and I don't just want to increase that. After all, I started out as the ultimately selfish and self-concerned being there is - a baby. From that start I began to learn and that's the part, right there, that counts.

I learned that I wasn't the only one that was hungry and I already knew I didn't like being hungry - I had discovered that those other shapes were not there simply for my benefit, that they existed as separate humans - and they might not like being hungry either. That learning process applied across the board creates a moral set which is based most firmly on the recognition that I am not the center, that I share reality with others who are similarly constructed. That learning can get broken or shorted or a lot of things that result in behaviors that reflect something entirely different. What I'm doing is using a lot of words for one, empathy.

A society cannot allow a mental defect that results in bad outcomes to remain unchecked. A society won't work if indiscriminate killing is allowed, it simply won't hang together. That is an entirely different question than the one of a moral set that proposes killing is wrong and prohibited by that empathy thing. We teach soldiers to suspend that empathy in warfare where its degree interferes with the mission. There are consequences to this suspension, we seem to agree it is worth it.

Jesus (and others) put it pretty clearly, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." More words meaning empathy. God and rituals are not required for empathy, it is a natural understanding of humans existing, but it does require work to keep it in effect and in actions. Because effort is tightly bound to survival we do not lightly increase it any more than a mountain lion goes looking for a fight to get dinner. Because we're not mountain lions we're capable of placing an abstract above some considerations and that varies wildly. It doesn't require a Satan to place empathy behind other considerations, all it takes is a lack of willingness or a mental defect.

Sometimes people are broken in ways we really don't understand and even when we understand something like a brain injury, we don't quite know how they get there. We know that brains can have their wiring scrambled or chemicals missing resulting in undesirable behaviors. Before we knew some of those things about outwardly human people it was assumed some spiritual, some invisible influence must be at work.

Religions would cease to exist without followers, Greek mythology is practically speaking extinct. The connection between the followers and hierarchy was broken, for a lot of reasons, but it was broken. Religions are hierarchical, there are the deities, then there are the books/words, then there are the interpreters, and then there are the faithful. The structure collapses if that hierarchy isn't maintained and there are methods for ensuring that it does. Fear is the most common because it is easiest. One of the first things we learned was that pain was to be avoided and the assertion that disobedience will lead to pain is real effective. Most of us learned that absences of pain didn't mean happiness, but not being happy beat the heck out of pain so the absence of "glory" won't quite do to keep the troops in line. The something more involves stuff like lakes of fire presided over by the natural deity of disobedience - evil personified, our guy Satan. It was a stroke of genius or maybe necessity to make the disciplinarian and source of disobedience or lack the same guy. Keep in mind that maintaining that hierarchy requires exclusivity, if something outside that club works, all those pieces are unnecessary. A whip hand is required and Satan wields it. My choices are join the right club or be whipped.

So it is that a nation's government that concerns itself with the worldly and temporal order of its citizens without religious strictures is in violation. It is under the sway of the guy with the whip.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

I don't know about your understanding of abortion but I will state that Libertarianism and the above two statements don't exactly line up - like at all.

In regard to that Paultard baiting headline, from the CNN "debate" Rep Paul:

“But sort of along the line of the [contraception] pills creating immorality, I don’t see it that way. I think the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills. So you don’t blame the pills.”

Maybe you folks thinking no Federal War on Drugs means you get to smoke pot (hint - not a f***ing chance) ought to also give up on the idea that sexy-time without children as an outcome is on the Paul approved list. As for you married folks, pot or otherwise, you do that stuff and not have kids for it - well, you're immoral and a part of the decline of the US.

The guy tells you up front that he's not about your personal liberties, he's about the Fed not being involved. He's all for Government telling you what to do but just his Last Confederate Standing version. He tells you and you don't listen - your imagination just runs wild with your ideas and not what he means. Words for that run from "delusional" to "really damned stupid." Libertarian my ass - just another bigoted panty-sniffer.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

According to the Constitution there is not supposed to be a qualification for office that depends on religion. Now, to be quite accurate, that is a matter of law rather than whatever stupidity appeals to voters. Today we seem to think that the fact that a Mormon actually thinks he has a shot at the Presidency means something.

Ahem.

So what? Let's fire up that Way Back Machine for just a damn second. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. These Christian voters wouldn't recognize that "faith" as anything in the least similar to what they ingest as Christianity.

The GOP and enough others have ginned up a new religion out of whole cloth. They call it Secular Humanism. I don't know what the hell that is as far as doctrines and something to kneel to or pray to. I do know what secular means and I can even get to a definition:1

No, that really isn't what it's about. What it is about is that when their religion doesn't define legislation it must have been replaced by another. Somehow the idea that the Government's concerns really are "worldly or temporal" seems to have escaped them. Government is supposed to be somehow "right" with god which means that if the government concerns itself exclusively with "worldly and temporal" matters it must be using another religion in place of theirs. Humans being fallible and all, something must inform them.

That is the place where it all falls apart. I don't really have any idea how many religions there are or how many fractured pieces any one of them has; but it really ought to be pretty clear that there are a whole lot of opinions on that matter and that must mean that some pretty damned fallible humans are involved. That means that the fact that a government depending on fallible humans is an irretrievable proposition even if we go with their theocracy.

I really don't give a rat's patoot about your religion or lack of one, I do very much give a damn about being left alone in that regard. I don't want your religion. I also do not want my government doing the power seeking of getting "right" with god, nor do I want it messing about with you getting there.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

The GOP tells us repeatedly how they're the enemies of waste in government programs. There is waste and fraud in government programs, there's a lot of money going in a lot of directions. It seems that somebody is doing something. Be very surprised, it ain't the GOP.

Earlier this week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that the federal government recovered $4.1 billion in taxpayer dollars from individuals and corporations attempting to steal Medicare and Medicaid payments to which they were not entitled.

What's $4.1 billion? It is the largest amount of money ever recovered, by far, in the history of the programs since they were established in 1965

Do you suppose that it has penetrated the consciousness of Americans that the GOP does not mean anything by the term "smaller government" unless it involves some restriction on unmitigated greed? Every GOP policy means either taking something away from the general populace or restrictions on their ablilities. Despite their rhetorical devices every policy they promote results in a loss of something for the American people. Ron Paul, of course, wants states to do the removing unless it is abortion...

There are Democrats and "liberals" who are managing to act surprised by what is going on in States and in the GOP Primary. Yes, they're astonished that Right To Work For Less passes in Indiana, that Walker, Kaisich, Scott, Mcdonnell exist and sign bills, that goddam birth control is a GOP issue. The really disgusting apologists try on the Dems stayed home in '10 bullshit. Another bunch blame the left for criticizing Obama and Congress. Some others want to blame Democratic over-reach in legislation.

If you look at who got clobbered in '10 it wasn't the progressive (it's a stupid label but I have to use something) folks ... it was the Blue Dogs. Try to get this, the people who lost ran on "we're just barely Democrats" and "I'm not as bad as." The thought process of those who stayed home and those who switched their voting isn't real available so one is left with trying to see what correlates with what.

The first thing is disgust and discouragement with the current ('10) environment. ACA polled badly - a GOP health insurance plan - polled badly and then those losers ran away from it. First Democrats passed a GOP national health care plan and then ran away from it because it was toooooo - much. They went along with the GOPers about deficits, only half-heartedly. They went along with the social warfare of plutocrats versus the rest and especially against the losers in that equation.

They did not stand up as Democrats and they did not stand up for the good of the general populace - no, they tried to spit the difference. They tried to muddy the waters by being almost GOPers. Within the Party and the "liberal" coterie there is the stupid lack of awareness that the GOPer policies of today are a direct result of the opposition to their views consistently shifting in their direction - and trying to muddy the waters.

Curiously you'd get the idea the this is some kind of purity test, a desire to ape the GOPers. Let's get down to a case, if you are not to the left of St Ronnie it is pure pretence to claim a (D) label. That is not a goddam purity test unless you propose that the Parties are all the same. The process of muddying the waters has allowed the GOP to define the terms of the argument, right down to things like "liberal." Media reporting facts and digging for facts becomes "liberal media." In point of fact, the Beatification of St Ronnie is a natural outcome of that muddying and defining.

I'm about sick and tired of my Party forcing me into taking a the label far-Left because they've become the GOP of yester-year. Not giving the voters a clear choice invites this kind of disaster. Right now the GOP is making it very easy to make clear differences, how would you like to make bets on how that one works out?

You "liberals" can kiss my butt, you're happy with a label that means you were just barely sane enough to run away from, almost, the GOP. Please, either pick your authoritarian plutocrats or pick the people or just go away and let that "liberal" tag actually mean something again - along with Democrat have actual meaning. Democrats? Run campaigns that put meaning back into the damn word so those "liberals" have to chose.

Liberal is a word so debased by the GOP and the Blue Dogs that polling Americans puts it around used car salesman. It does not belong there - but you've asked for and gotten it.

I've stolen the title from someone and I'll not try to out do something this good. I will say that the insertion of objects into an unwilling participant is rape. The GOP would have you think their health insurance plan is government theft of freedom so it is obvious to me that all GOPers need to be asked about the process of the State requiring something be stuck into a woman's icky parts despite the entire lack of any medical necessity. This is an election after all.

This is all about the government shaming and otherwise making as unavailable as it can a medical procedure. This is somehow more acceptable to GOPers than Obamacare? Why aren't I hearing our liberal media asking questions about this?

The GOP is not now and has not been about smaller less intrusive government - unless one is talking about greed enabling - any more than it is about states as a legislative laboratory unless that involves taking things away from the general populace. They'd certainly like you to forget Oregon's assisted suicide law and what they tried there or how they'd like to deal with gay marriage.

Try to understand the abject stupidity of their stances - they are never against a state taking away or prohibiting something and they are all about stopping any state from giving or recognizing an ability. There is no core consistency for the simple reason that there is no core other than hate and resentment - and plutocracy.

These people hate you and resent you and there is absolutely no sense in playing patty-cake with them. If your candidate doesn't seem to recognize that maybe you need to ask them about it. Liberals...?

I've pretty much stopped auggesting policies because there is no point in it when the first issue of being hated and destroyed by the GOP is ignored. Why the hell can't Democrats wrap their little minds around the fact that Kaisich, Walker, Scott, the US House and the GOP Primary are all a piece of their politicking? All kinds of blame shifting going on - rather than the simple equation that "Not As Bad As" is not a goddam political party.

...I wish we'd scarcely known ye. Yup, Pat Buchanan is out at MSNBC and oddly enough he's unhappy about it. He's been blacklisted.

In the 10 years I have been at MSNBC, the network has taken heat for what I have written, and faithfully honored our contract. Yet my four-months’ absence from MSNBC and now my departure represent an undeniable victory for the blacklisters.

It is entirely possible that this cretin doesn't know what the term "blacklisted" refers to. It may have missed him that it refers to an industry wide blanket non-employment of a class of people - in particular the "villains" of McCarthyism. Now since he can say this:

If my book is racist and anti-Semitic, how did Sean Hannity, Erin Burnett, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Megyn Kelly, Lou Dobbs, and Ralph Nader miss that? How did Charles Payne, African-American host on Fox radio, who has interviewed me three times, fail to detect its racism? How did Michael Medved miss its anti-Semitism?

it is pretty hard to see how he's been subjected to a blacklisting - even if he does list a bunch of cretins as references. Cretinism seems to be alive and well in the industry and with friends like these it is hard to see that Pat will be lacking a forum to spout his inanities.

Pat's been a big one for the Free Market horseshit and it would seem a bit odd for him to be all BLACKLISTED about a corporate decision on product. You see, this was the product:

My days as a political analyst at MSNBC have come to an end.

It would seem that MSNBC didn't want to pay for what Pat calls political analysis. It isn't shown that his voice has been silenced or that MSNBC has made any effort at all to do more than not pay him for what they had been paying him for.

It should be noted that MSNBC can get Pat's crap free from elected GOPers and wannabe elected GOPers. Further, on a couple shows they get to do their act without fear of contradiction.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

I've watched as a Democratic President has tried to operate the Executive Branch as a Center or Center Right organization run into massive difficulties with the GOP bunch for using their policies - granted a decade or so later. The mocked Stimulus was larded with GOP policies goodies that garnered nothing from the GOP and probably did poorly thanks to the amount devoted to their policies. The crazy inspiring "Obamacare" is was warmed up decade and change old GOP program that is now socialized medicine infringing on religious something or the others. The guy whose policies the left can barely keep its contempt for at less than a dull roar is a socialist - a position well left of most of what passes for the left today. These sentiments are played by the so-called moderate Republican Mitt Romney. (I forgot - severe conservative Mitt)

A hell of a lot of ... liberals (chokes me to use the word in this context) gleefully blame the "left" for not turning out in the 2010 mid-terms and sinking Democrats. Never mind that Democrats turned out in ordinary numbers and that the depressed turnout was Independents and it was their turn in voting that sank Democtrats - it was the left. The left, the bogeyman of not only the Reichwingers but also of the "liberals." I'll explain the " marks. Their liberalism comes down to being accepting of anything that isn't looney-toons right. It doesn't matter a bit if things are poisoned by GOP positions or actually crafted on decade old GOP policies, they'll do and criticism is left wing cut our throats bullshit designed to ... who the hell knows. A ways back they'd have been called Reagan Democrats except they're to the right of them. It comes down to them holding up the crazy of the GOP and stating that their opposition to that amounts to liberalism.

Mention tax rates that are higher for wealth than those under Clinton (less than Reagan) and they'll lose their minds about leftism. Honest to Pete, proposing tax rates of Reaganism levels is somehow ultra-stupid looney leftism. OWS is composed of dirty inconveniences who aren't sufficiently attached to Obama and their proposition that Reagan was too left on economics. Glass-Steagal was the law under Reagan and not Clinton? The decline of the middle class and particularly the blue collar economic situation began with Reagan and he's too goddam liberal?

I'm a gun owning construction guy leftist and I claim the label because I am left of St Ronnie Ray Gun. I want the government out of things that do not have real effects on the general good. Most of us (by huge margin) who own guns do nothing bad with them and want to be left the hell alone about it and the people who do bad things concentrated on. I want tax codes that do what the hell they're supposed to do, a mortgage deduction for a goddam mansion or second homes or vacation homes does not encourage home ownership - it rewards wealth. The industry's benefit from those is immaterial compared to the difference in having REAL wages paid. There is no discernable benefit to society at large in having a smaller tax rate on investment income than on ordinary income that is gotten in some actually productive manner. I don't have a big problem with encouraging investment in public bonds and such because they do serve the common good. I don't mind being reluctant to go to war and for more than an emergency reaction forcing Congress to approve and fund such a war. I cannot for the life of me see why some electoral financial behavior is not treated as bribery when in fact it is. i have no idea why things like big oil are subsidized. I have no idea why derivative trading is still allowed and in fact - why the hell a bunch of banksters aren't under indictment for fraud when they knew they were selling and insuring junk. Consider that the S&L mess almost sunk McPOW and did sink others. huh.

I am sick and tired of religion and government getting mixed up with each other. You certainly cannot take the church out of the candidate but you can sure the hell take the church out of the law and the government out of financing in any fashion the church. If a hospistal insists that it provide religion based treatment protocols that is certainly their busines, but the government should not give them a damned cent. What? You don't think the Catholic hospitals are government subsidized? What exactly would you call Medicare and Medicaid payments? They sure the hell ain't coming out of their collection plates.

How in the hell is it that in 2012 a major political party is making an issue of contraception? How in the hell is it that a New Jersey Governor would advocate putting the 60s Civil Rights business to a referendum? And then not be laughed off the stage as he tried to walk that back with more utter nonsense. Do you really want an answer?

You can thank those "liberals." You can thank them for their timidity and fear that the Right might make an issue of something. You can thank them for the idea that anything left of goddam St Ronnie consists of lunacy and is worthy of mockery and fear. You can thank them for the idea that any (D) will do, rather than putting a (D) up against the pretenders or when it actually happens voting for the pretender. That's not about a purity test, it is simply about what fits in any sort of Democratic Party that is something other than "not the Republicans."

I've just wasted a bunch of bytes preaching to the choir, the people who are the problem are so stuck in the lies that define their politics that this is pointless. I've pretty much quit promoting anything for that reason - they are the Democratic Party despite the rest of us and a wall is more persuadable.

Here ya go ladies, and men who have sex with ladies - the folks the GOP thinks should tell you about birth control and insurance. I suppose it is fortunate for a goodly segment that alter boys don't get pregnant...

It is probably worth noting that this isn't just about not having babies, it is also about not having a national health insurance standard at all. You may have not noticed but the local Church of Dumbassery believes as a matter of conscience and moral conviction that you only get sick because God wants you to. The Church of Dumbassery looks forward to large donations from corporate employers as members of this now burgeoning congregation who are unwilling to pay for anything contrary to the designs of the God of the Church of Dumbassery.

I get such a chuckle when these things come out. Here we have millions of our fellow Americans unemployed, we have jihadist camps being set up in Latin America, which Rick has been warning about, and people seem to be so preoccupied with sex. I think it says something about our culture. We maybe need a massive therapy session so we can concentrate on what the real issues are. And this contraceptive thing, my gosh, it's such inexpensive. Back in my day, they used Bayer aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly.

Sure, this is Santorums's PAC boy Foster Friess talking about Rick, but this is what the GOP means. Boner pills aren't part of the discussion, you know - get it up and keep it up - should be a part of insurance coverage but not getting pregnant from it or avoiding other health issues somewhat peculiar to the other half are subject to some body's superstition or Puritanism or alter boy abusing sensibilities.

I want you to follow along in this deconstruction, The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly, has in it the actuality of the situation. Men like to have sex and that's just ordinary business and women don't like it - or more especially should not like it. If they do like it, then having babies should be a part of the package - whether one of them houses that baby and the other doesn't since... I don't know, the price of liking it should be 9 months of carrying a baby and then...

Now maybe a woman shouldn't like having sex with Foster Friess or any of the other GOPers playing at this game and while that might be personally relevant to them and their unfortunate sex partners... some of the more enlightened (like most of us) are happy to see this as a mutually satisfying activity rather than one imposed on the female side of the equation.

Oh hell... somebody will actually vote for these neanderthals and this probably won't go away any now anymore than it has for millenia's worth of woman hating male dominionism cloaked in "morality."

Sunday, February 12, 2012

The President's announced policy regarding contraceptive coverage went considerably less far than I'd have cared for. My stance is that if Catholics don't like having rules applied to them that apply to all other employers the choice is simple - get the hell out of business - business ain't religion. That, or if it is that holy a damn deal then surely they can do it with volunteers from their godly flock. Now, let's be real frank with each other - not a snow ball's chance in hell volunteers are gonna do it.

These changes require careful moral analysis, and moreover, appear subject to some measure of change. But we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer's plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

What is included in this mess is buried in the middle " secular for-profit employers" which is the real kicker. What they want your to understand is that no Catholic who doesn't want to should have to offer this coverage. That would surely mean that no Catholic should be paying any taxes that are paying for capital punishment or wars or... hell, if the Jesus words got used seriously as quoted... I think you can figure it out. They are to be exempt from rules because... well, because they're special. You know how special they are? They're so goddam special that they ran a cover-up of pedophilia because the laws requiring disclosure of such knowledge didn't count. Because ... well because, well hardly any Catholics engage in such behavior, but not so infrequently once you get to the elites. It is almost the same deal with contraceptives - the elites are engaging in something pretty foreign to their parishoners. That's it, the parishoners don't bugger alter boys and they do use contraceptives and the Bishops...? You do have to be a Priest before you can get to be a Bishop.

The Church of Chuck wants the same deal, I get to tell any rule I don't agree with to step off. Not a cent for wars, for executions, for drug wars, for any damn thing other than infrastructure and social programs. I'll run my business any way I damned well please and if they don't like it - I'll just appeal to the Final Authority ... Prophet Chuck. To be clear, there are a whole lot of religions around and I think that's just fine - I just don't happen to buy into any of them... well except for the afore mentioned one, the REAL DEAL. Don't worry too much, the REAL DEAL is fine with you getting into heaven or whatever despite your heathenish beliefs.

(sometimes I'm just kidding around, sometimes I'm really not)

BTW Bishops, you have about as much moral authority as some things I've found stuck on the bottom of my boot.

Friday, February 10, 2012

When the hell did Jack Abramoff get rehabilitated in GOPer circles sufficiently that his bag boy Ralph Reed gets to talk about anything other than scamming the rubes on the Religious Right? Ralph played hit man for Abramoff in the Indian Gambling scandal using his "pulpit" to get the religiously oblivious to cut the throat of one gamer for the benefit of another. This smarmy little dweeb pretends to have morality and honor, c'mon. CNN, purveyor of crap and pulpit of shitheels, home of Erin Burnett.

You have no idea how pissed I am that James Carville can't work up to call out the rat bastard? Oh yeah the goddam liberal media...

I guess today at the CPAC fantasy camp Mitt finally got the starring role he's been auditioning for - as Claude Rains as The Invisible Man. He stood up in front of god and everybody and started unwrapping... and voila - no more Mitt, he vanished like a fist when you open your hand (to steal from one of the best). The thing, of course if you read the book or watched the movie, a foggy drizzle took care of that vanishing act.

Romney has a record, both as a Governor and as several candidates.(I mean that just like that) There are laws, transcripts, audio tapes, and video tapes that will act as a foggy drizzle creating an outline. Since you're dealing with, well, CPAC there is no telling how that'll play. I, frankly, couldn't give less of a rat's ass what those CPACers do with the crap shoveled by Mitt, they're a smidgen of the general vote. I am glad that Mitt has put more stuff into the public record available to be used on him.

*...and other right wing lunatics - Mother Jones has bothered to pay attention.

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too

Since most American Catholics seem to ignore the Church on matters of birth control and while it is true for the Bishops that buggering alterboys doesn't result in pregnancy what you are trying for is to create a second class citizenry by virtue of employer.

But then it does seem that you don't much mind having second class citizens as the Confederate Party of Republicanism...

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

I guess this means Nancy gets to keep her $400K/year as though this Planned Parenthood thing started and stopped with Karen. Try to keep in mind that after de-funding PP this outfit, including the top woman, went out telling lies about mamograms and getting referrals for a mamogram - which is exactly the gap PP was filling.

Donate where you please, but these people have already proven that at the top they are lying right wingers.

Thursday, February 02, 2012

*UPDATE*Komen reverses sort ofAnd so what? Now you know what they are and how they want to operate and there are plenty of alternatives. You might want to consider what your nearly half million dollars is buying in a CEO that walked them into this mess.

The Donald and the Mittens are on the same team now. The Mittens gratefully accepted The Donald's endorsement saying he also knows how to create jobs. Funny, The Donald is most famous for "You're Fired," though Mittens is gaining some ground on that one. We do know Mittens is RICH and that The Donald is supposed to be supposed to be REALLY RICH (analysis vairies) and they do share bankruptcies in their background - other people's in Mitt's case.

It has been pretty obvious from the outcomes of Citizen's United that RICH people really like to spend their money on Mittens. I'm a bit "Free Market" dubious that the money is getting spent out of altruism, in regard to the welfare of the general punlic. The plutocrats and their enablers have been informing us for years now that greed is good, that using money to get a lot more money is why the system works. That would cause some doubt about Mitt's claims that the poor and the rich are doing OK and he's concentrated on the Middle Class. If that were the actual case, you'd have to wonder why those RICH people are throwing money at Mittens to the degree they are. (sure at that income level a few millions is chump change)

Maybe the spectacle of two RICH guys making out on stage will get something across to the public. Don't bet your house on it (bet the bank might work).

The American Catholic Church is in an uproar because the Government has told them that they along with the other businesses covered by ACA have to get health insurance that covers contraception. They want a religious exemption because their version of god doesn't like ... well women having sex without babies. You know, bumping the dirty parts together without the consequences of child birth.

Well here's the deal, the Catholic Church wants to engage in commerce and yet remain outside the rules of commerce. Now they call it conscience, but what is it that stops me from putting together The Church of Libertarianism and making one of the tenets of my profit Paul that I don't have to serve ni***rs or maybe that building codes are a matter of conscience or... You see, I don't get to because I'm engaged in an act of commerce and it is damn bad policy to let that... just go hang.

Well, the Catholic Church has been around for a real long time and it isn't just some made up... thing. Prove it isn't. Show me how their infallible word of god exempts this behavior and they don't still get to run the Inquisition. Go ahead and show me how it is that my working for one business rather than an other makes me a second class citizen. There isn't a damn thing in the ruling that says that any one of those employees is required to use any one of those products.

Well, you could work for another hospital... You sure could, if you didn't live here, you could unless you need to drive 45 miles through the mountains to get to the nearest non-Catholic hospital. Hey, well qualified RN, you don't get insurance access to contraception here, but that RN that does the same job over in La Grande sure does - and try to like this, that person pulling boards on the mill line gets it. By law.

If you reeeaaaalllly don't like that doing business has rules, then get the hell out of business or do it all with volunteers. If you're really that favored by god you shouldn't have a bit of trouble finding them. They can ... stuff their conscience.

BTW, before this shakes out the Catholics won't be the only ones squealing. Do you suppose they'll include treatment for pedophilia in their policies?

This is why Mitt is not the inevitible nomineeMitt scored a 14 point victory over Newt in the Florida Primary but...Mitt spent (sort of) about $21 for each vote, yep $16.7M for 770K votes is pretty expensive and that is only mass media advertising. The votes bought at that cost involved a 40% who wanted a different set of choices. Tanking Newt (of all people) for that kind of money didn't get Mitt any kind of love.

If you're thinking that your state doesn't look anything like Florida you may have missed that this is a GOP Primary and maybe you're unfamiliar with the GOP. Maybe you need to look at the winning GOPers in your state and what it took to get them there. A lot of you think Oregon is a real liberal state, not quite right. The actual left is about the same size it is anywhere else and about the same stance, the liberal part is about the same also, what is different is that the middle is just a tad more liberal and that is enough to tip elections. The Oregon GOP is not more liberal and its base is not in the least less, well what it is in even N Florida. If you take a look at the losing non-statewide GOP candidates you won't find that Newt doing well would be a real big damn surprise.

If you're wondering just how breast cancer manages to become a political football you could go look at Mother Jones to get an idea. I'll give you a taste:

Second, sitting on Komen's Advocacy Alliance Board is Jane Abraham, the General Chairman of the virulently anti-choice and anti-science Susan B. Anthony List and of its Political Action Committee. Among other involvements, Abraham helps direct the Nuturing Network (sic), a global network of crisis pregnancy centers known for spreading ideology, misinformation and lies to women facing unintended pregnancy. Also on the board of Nuturing Network (sic) is Maureen Scalia, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Maybe you've lost someone to this, I have. Maybe the fact that poor and rural women will be most affected bothers you. Maybe the fact that women have some different equipment doesn't make you feel like... I don't know... a control freak monster. Maybe a whole lot of things, but here's the deal - Planned Parenthood does do abortions and it is a real small part of what they do and it is almost entirely about women's health and that small part of it makes some people into something that I'd have to use rude words to describe.

Well, the Republicans have managed another onslaught on women's health so Planned Parenthood could use your help. As a correlary, that Pink Ribbon bunch and their corporate sponsors have proved they don't deserve ... spit.

Wednesday, February 01, 2012

Once again a state, Florida in this case, has shown that a majority of GOPers, 54% this time, don't want MultipleMitt. You could go ahead and make the case that a four way race means lower vote totals and be accurate in a lot of cases. You do have a vote split but it is on the ABM side - not including Ron Paul. To be clear, Ron Paul's voters are not Mitt Romney's except in opposition to President Obama. Some of them won't go there because their pet issues are less represented by Mitt than the President, some of them are the Last Confederates Standing and will do damn near any sort of gymnastics to oppose that... darker guy in the White House. I am not making the case that race plays no role with the other GOP candidates or that they don't play at dog whistling, but...

Florida is a closed winner take all GOP Primary, you have to be a registered GOP to play. There are states where that would help Newt but Florida is a peculiar GOP demographic. Parts of the state are typical, but real big chunks of voters are from somewhere else with ties and traditions from elsewhere. Americans are mobile, but Florida is a special case, some of it is virtually a suburb of of the North East and North Central US. Fleeing the snow is not the same thing as fleeing the public policies of those areas.

As far as these candidates in regard to the "ideology" of the GOP this bunch are as fake as I can ever remember seeing - and I've paid attention for quite awhile. None of them has a record that matches what they're playing to the voters. If you're trying to give Rick Santorum credit for such a thing, you'd be well served to take a look back at Jack Abromoff and the Mariannes Islands amongst other issues. These characters are the most abject frauds that have run in any major party for a hell of a long time. And what matters is that all Mitt's money can't buy him love.

Ron Paul has love, to the cult degree, from a big part of his supporters and he has wishful thinking to the point of delusion from the rest. Rick Santorum gets himself some love from those ignorant of his past, and Newt gets some from the any bombast will do crowd. Mitt gets almost tolerated and it ain't his money.

There is no doubt that Mitt gets a lot of money from some real rich people but money works for a different type of loving than character. I've left a rather large sized blank in that statement for you to fill in. I don't know anybody who knows what Mitt stands for other than that he deserves to be President. As a candidate President Obama was somewhat of a blank slate that people filled in with their own chalk but there was a record that didn't stand in stark contrast to what he had to say. With Mitt you're left with what he has to say today and even that is pretty much empty word salad when it comes to Mitt.

I am really glad that I have almost nothing in common with the GOP beyond being a bipedal humanoid. I do think one Party having a slate of candidates like this is bad for a country with, essentially, a two Party system. Well, I have hopes for a long contested mess over there on that side, maybe the so-called non-affiliated voters will get some kind of an idea. Don't hold your breath on that score.

Followers

About Me

I registered as a "D" in 1971 and what I consider most important in political policy is economic and social justice, and ALL of our Civil Liberties. If you think you've figured a niche for me, you've no clue.